OT: Could Bush Have Been Right?

[Merryprankster]

For the reasons I outlined.

Lebanon has accepted Syrian involvement in their politics in exchange for stability and nominal independence. Their constitution is an interesting piece of work....

Anyway, it guarantees the presidency to the Maronites and they have a vested interest in getting Syria out of there. For one it would give them the presidency back in reality. Two, it would give them a bigger cut of the profits (Lebanon is a state run almost entirely by graft...)

The attack on the former PM is great to accomplish both those goals. He's an easy target, instead of the CURRENT PM, and he's an outspoken critic of Syria's involvement in Lebanon.

Kill him, and you unleash serious criticism of Syria, both internally and internationally, because it's really easy to pin the blame on them.

I personally believe the Maronites did it. I will grant that it is possible that the U.S. presence in Iraq factored into the equation, but using the presence of U.S. troops, which Syria feels threatened by, as a possible point of leverage in what is essentially an internal struggle, is far different than a fundamental, regional change.

[wdl]

IF Iraq proves successful is the key - so we can't call it the first in a line of dominoes. I'll wait about a decade before passing judgment on the success of Iraq. It's too early to tell what impact it is going to have.

That's my position on the Iraq subject. Bush might want his legacy, but it's not going to be decided while he's in office. Only time will tell.

-Will

[David Jamieson]

I'm not convinced Iraq has been won.

It's still under occupational rule more or less with a less than elected "democratic" government.

Merry, the only way the USA could defeat the entire middle eats is by killing them all with nuke strikes. lol.

Ritters commentary on whether or not the US could take Iraq was pretty close. The US is an occupational fore in Iraq. As far as I can see, there are still opposing forces with some firepower wasting people almost indiscriminatly and daily there.

Yes, the US has a powerful military, but it still doesn't have everything sewn up. It's a tightrope walk across a very high wire. I would not invest as much faith in it as you appear to have merry. That's some self confidence you got going on there dude. Are you certain? Of course not, you can't be, nothing is "certain".

Many arab nations are bumping hip and are defusing a lot of possible scenarios, and they are doing it their way, not according to the way the US wants it.

Lebanon is a one off, we'll see where it goes.

The saudis still couldn't hold a fair and democratic election if you put agun to their head, their society is not exactly about equal rights and women are "less than" men there, that fact alone preventrs any sort of fair and balanced government or secular authority that is required for fair and balanced government representing the entirety of the populace.

Egypt is playing hide and seek and that all remains to be seen.

Yep, the pot has been stirred, thousands have been killed and in the end? Well, it doesn't seem there is an end in sight yet. So to even put the question forward about Bush being right or wrong is premature. I'm going with wrong still just based on the loss of human life to a war started on lies.

[jun_erh]

I disagree. there was never any question that our army could destroy iraqs. bush sr culd have done it, Clinton could have. the post war was where the problems were going to be. As Bush sr said we didn't want to be an occupier in a foreign nation.



bush ignored warnings about 9/11. He ignored warnings about Iraq. When we look back at his presidency we will see a pattern of incompetance and not much else.

[red5angel]

It's still under occupational rule more or less with a less than elected "democratic" government.

can't teach an old dog new tricks I see.....

[jun_erh]

Yeah, I don't really see how the election was un democratic. Catching saddam and having the election were two of the few bright spots in this whole mess. Mostly just day after day of "15 killed in car bomb" newspaper headlines which will undoubtedly continue for at least the next year. And there wasn't much "bounce" to either of those events.

[red5angel]

kung lek insists it wasn't democratic because one faction decided not to vote (not everyone belonging in that faction mind you). he neglects to point out that they CHOSE to not vote in that election, which still makes it democratic.

[joedoe]

I think the proof of the pudding will be after the foreign troops pull out. If the democracy in Iraq can stand on its own then it couldd be considered a success. Until then ...

[Merryprankster]

kung lek insists it wasn't democratic because one faction decided not to vote (not everyone belonging in that faction mind you). he neglects to point out that they CHOSE to not vote in that election, which still makes it democratic.

What's really funny is how the UN is the "gold standard" for legitimacy, like when the U.S. decided to invade Iraq....

Except when its not, like when the UN says the elections are free and fair.

Which is it? Can't have it both ways if you view the UN as a sanctioning body for international action legitimacy.

[wdl]

I'm not convinced Iraq has been won.

It's still under occupational rule more or less with a less than elected "democratic" government.

Ritters commentary on whether or not the US could take Iraq was pretty close. The US is an occupational fore in Iraq. As far as I can see, there are still opposing forces with some firepower wasting people almost indiscriminatly and daily there.

No one is convinced Iraq has been won yet. What Ritter was saying, he said BEFORE we got to Baghdad. He was saying that we wouldn't be able to take the city. He was saying that Iraqi's "elite" Republican Guard was a match for the US Military. That they would stand and fight, and that the US would loose and be humilitated in that context. He was WRONG. You drive COLUMNs of M-1A1 tanks through a metropolitan area and your taking it by force. There's no two ways about it. When you don't have your own heavy infantry to counter that you LOSE.

The big hoopla over whether or not the US could take Baghdad was because of stupid armchair quarterbacks that bought the BS that the Pengaton feed them. They told them they were going into Baghdad with a light force such as the 101st Airborne. While that was part of it, the Pentagon isn't stupid either. You don't invade a country, spend billions of dollars and get people killed to loose. Remember the amphibious landing of the first gulf war that never happened? Same tactic. Ritter bought into it, spouted his mouth, accept he did it irrationally. He said the US military couldn't take iraq. What an idiot.

Taking a country over militarily isn't a problem maintaining control afterward like I said, is a different story. As far as the oposing forces still there go, they'll be there for awhile yet. Nothing can be done accept shoot at them when they are found then let the Iraqis run them out now that they are starting to get a police and military force back together. We won't know for awhile yet if it will be successful.

When US troops crossed into Iraq from Kuwait that was a 5-10 year commitment of manpower on the ground. I knew it, Bush knew it no matter what he's said otherwise, Rumsfield knew it, both parties of congress knew it, everyone knew. Now everybody is itch'n about it and wanting an exit strategry.

-Will

[David Jamieson]

Some of you guys watch way to much Bill O'reilly (refering to abortion survivor red 5 mostly) lol.

Holy crap!

A faction "decided not to vote"? Are you fukking stupid or just pizzing around? I'm gonna go with you are stupid. That's the dumbest fukking thing I've read all day! yay! shiny nickle for you pinhead now go back to licking falwells nuts while he demands the nuking of the arabs.

man, one thing you got right red. You, as a dog, are incapable of learning any new tricks whatsoever. To borrow a page from your pamphlet of lines. STFU and come back when you got something worthwhile to say. lol.

ok, all you freakin neo-con ditto heads may go back to patting each other on the back and rim jopbbing each other now. I can't find a good reason to argue with some of you, you seem so retarded.

At least Merry tries! lol

[rogue]

Is Tourettes contaigous? Can someone get it just by reading a post?

[wdl]

ok, all you freakin neo-con ditto heads may go back to patting each other on the back and rim jopbbing each other now. I can't find a good reason to argue with some of you, you seem so retarded.

Well, to use the Team America analogy, you sir, are a poosey. You see, I'm a d|ck, your a poosey and Saddam's an @$$hole.

If we keep it in that context we might all agree. If you've not seen Team America, World Police watch it, then it'll enlighten to your role.

-Will

[Merryprankster]

Actually KL, it's your continuing inability to tease out the separate parts of an argument that make you so difficult to reason with. I've met other, perfectly rational Canadians, so I'll assume it's either just you or something in the pipes at your house.

For instance IF you believe that the UN is THE sanctioning body for international legitimacy, then:

The Iraq war was illegal, BUT the elections were free and fair BY DEFINITION. This doesn't mean that you can't think the UN was WRONG, which is a different issue.

However, UNLESS you believe that member states are bound to UN decisions, regardless, effectively making them the final arbiter of appropriate action (and thus a higher authority than all state governments), then this undermines the argument that nations require UN approval before exercising their own hard power.

If they are a higher authority than all state government and can trump their individual decisions in all relevant matters, then they can, in fact, dictate state actions.

If they are not, and the state has discretion of sorts, then believing the UN got it WRONG means that you can hold the elections invalid and the Iraq war illegal. But, that means that since the UN got it wrong on the elections, you have to allow for the possibility that the UN also got it wrong on invading Iraq. And if the state does have discretion then they can act without UN approval when the UN gets it wrong. That is just the reverse of many of the Neo-Con arguments....both sides are simply using the UN as convenient.

It all depends on what you view as the role of the UN and the member states within it.

If you view UN approval as the garantor of moral legitimacy, then the invasion was wrong, but the elections were fine, and people/states are BOUND to UN decisions on the issue. Any other view is hypocritical.

If you view the UN approval as the garantor of legal legitimacy but wrong from time to time, then you can believe anything you like, but have to allow for pluralism in the system, each with their own very real, often valid arguments. You can use the UN as evidence to back your point up, but must argue from more basic legal, moral and philosophic principles, because the UN is not the gold standard after all. It's just another political institution, capable of the same mistakes, having the power it does by system structure, vice inherent superior decision-making capacity. This means that member states are BOUND to UN decisions, but only in the legal sense. The UN itself might be wrong

If you view the UN as a body that increases the legitimacy (or is irrelevant) and that individual states have power to make their own decisions, then you may take any view you like, once again, using the UN as evidence, but again, arguing from more basic legal, moral and philosophic principles.

But you can't take the first and have it both ways or you're a pathetic hypocrite. And you can't take the second and maintain the UN on a pedestal.

And unless you take the first, you can't sit around foaming at the mouth, sputtering "the UN said!!!!" till you're red in the face....but then you're bound by their decision....

Oooooo rough catch 22....

[David Jamieson]

This little production always has the same players and always spirals into the ground like a bird with a broken wing.

funny thing is, the line always opens with "hey Bush is ok right?"

then, the same folks line up and say "yeah, death to islam" then they start ululating in the american way.

then i pop in and call them wads for being redneck blinder wearing neo con ditto heads.

then i get attacked and the whole thread becomes "pfft" which is generally what it was to begin with.

welcome to the crossfire of kfm. so many tuckers in one room is a bit weird.